The other side of high-speed police chases

I don't care to, but you did put the time into making the reply look nice so I will

You break the law, you do the time, that's it. The problem with most youth not knowing the laws was said because we need to better educate them on the laws at a younger age. You have to start YOUNG with kids as young as you can to get them on the right track.
You see, if you let a train go off track just a little bit its much harder to get it back on track where as if you get it going straight on the tracks in the first place. So goes my opinion anyhow.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I don't disagree with you on these points at all.

See, not every discussion has to turn into a locked-down flame-fest!!! :wink:

GO PACK!!!

Robert C. Hedley

Click to expand...

Oh fo sure!
It didn't get locked because AADP didn't get a chance to see it lol

Anubis, I originally intended te be a Crown attorney, but got into defence. By doing so I have totally reversed my philosophy.

I have seen first hand how misunderstandings lead innocent people to be charged and thus are forced to go to trial. IMO, I am sure that other defence lawyers would agree, the crown often deals in a manner similar to "throw a whole bunch of sh*t aginst the wall and hope some of it sticks". The charges are riddiculous.

That brings me to youth criminals, yes there are many. I know that you know what the philosophy of our prision system is Anubis, and it is total bull. I agree that certain people are really bad, and deserve to have stiffer sentences. Other youths are just too young to give a damn, or know what on earth was going on. They get caught up and make little mistakes. I really think that because of a few idiots, all youths who make mistakes shouldn't be punished like no tomorrow.

with criminals in general, the Charter plays a very important role. I have no faith in the way the Supreme Court interprets the charater, because they are all ex-PM Paul Martin's lapdogs. But to get back to my point, the Charter is a must for criminals. This is because the charter is what gives a person arrested and charged with DUI not to have the **** beat out of them (personal example with such a case). To say that it is ok for criminals to have their charter rights violated becomes a slippery slope, because then the question becomes at what point is someone considered a criminal? When they are stopped by the police? Well then the next time you are wrongfully stopped for suspected DUI, that would mean the police can violate your rights.

I mean it is really a slippery slope, and criminals NEED to have rights. I mean they are after all human. A select few are really over the edge, and to a degree they have their rights in accordance with the principles of fundemental justice limited, because it is justifiable in a free and democratic society. However I really don't think criminals who screw up and make a mistake, and are NOT repeat offenders should suffer as much as those who do make a mistake. Punishment isn't a deterence, the possibility of getting caught is the actual deterence.

I am sorry if that didn't make sense, got in from Canada Day celebration around 1 am, and I am typing this at 2 in the morning. I will gladly clerify anythign if you do not understand, and I apologize beforehand.

TOPackerFan, would you care to share your thoughts on this, I know you are involved in the field of law, and as I am only a law student at this point, you will have a better understanding and more knowledge gained through first hand experience than I do.

I have seen too many "young offenders" that were given "slap on the wrist punishments" and were merely encouraged to engage in more serious forms of criminal activity including B&E, aggravated assault and drug trafficking. One individual in particular simply stated that his aspiration was to join an outlaw motorcycle gang because it is easier that working, and you were never punished for crime anyways. This mentality simply has to stop, and the only way to accomplish it is to start handing out stiffer penalties to not only youths, but criminals as a whole.

all about da packers said:

with criminals in general, the Charter plays a very important role. I have no faith in the way the Supreme Court interprets the charater, because they are all ex-PM Paul Martin's lapdogs. But to get back to my point, the Charter is a must for criminals. This is because the charter is what gives a person arrested and charged with DUI not to have the **** beat out of them (personal example with such a case). To say that it is ok for criminals to have their charter rights violated becomes a slippery slope, because then the question becomes at what point is someone considered a criminal? When they are stopped by the police? Well then the next time you are wrongfully stopped for suspected DUI, that would mean the police can violate your rights.

Click to expand...

A criminal is someone who is CONVICTED of an offense. Our justice system (like most of the civilized world) is based on the idea that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This was the case before 1982, and would continue to be the case if the Charter was discarded. I don't recall a police state in Canada prior to 1982 when the Charter was signed into law, and find it very difficult to believe that we would suddenly find Canada becoming one in its absense.

all about da packers said:

I mean it is really a slippery slope, and criminals NEED to have rights. I mean they are after all human. A select few are really over the edge, and to a degree they have their rights in accordance with the principles of fundemental justice limited, because it is justifiable in a free and democratic society. However I really don't think criminals who screw up and make a mistake, and are NOT repeat offenders should suffer as much as those who do make a mistake.

Click to expand...

This is where you and I disagree. I believe in basic human rights for everyone, but the criminals have far too many as it stands right now (eg. the Right to Vote - thanks Martin :roll: ). As for criminals who are not repeat offenders, let me ask you to consider this:

A first time offender is convicted of violently raping a 6 year old child. Would you feel comfortable giving him a break as a first time offender if you knew he would be placed in a half-way house a block away from where your children attend school? Would you trust his promises that he was "reformed" and would not offend again?

all about da packers said:

Punishment isn't a deterence, the possibility of getting caught is the actual deterence.

Click to expand...

That is simply not true. There is no deterence for a criminal running a multi-million dollar cocaine cartel if there is no punishment for getting caught. If that is not the case, explain why DUI rates dropped dramatically once there was a mandatory year-long license suspension imposed for first-time offenders, and a mandatory year in jail for repeat offenders. Obviously the punishment IS a deterence, providing it is severe enough.

all about da packers said:

I am sorry if that didn't make sense, got in from Canada Day celebration around 1 am, and I am typing this at 2 in the morning. I will gladly clerify anythign if you do not understand, and I apologize beforehand.

This is where you and I disagree. I believe in basic human rights for everyone, but the criminals have far too many as it stands right now (eg. the Right to Vote - thanks Martin :roll: ). As for criminals who are not repeat offenders, let me ask you to consider this:

A first time offender is convicted of violently raping a 6 year old child. Would you feel comfortable giving him a break as a first time offender if you knew he would be placed in a half-way house a block away from where your children attend school? Would you trust his promises that he was "reformed" and would not offend again?

Click to expand...

I should have made my meanings more clear, I meant that offenders who do things as a mistake. Criminals such as child molestors, child rapists, rapists, and murderers are in a whole different category all together. I completly agree with you that such people should get sitffer penalties, specifically without the chance of parole. I was debating moreso about the case zero had brought forth about the girl stealing the car, but otherwise I agree with you. Idiots like those, simply put, need to be locked up and have the key thrown away.

It goes without saying, our judicial philosophy is that prision serves 4 purposes, one of them being that it will cure the criminal. BS. It's simple fact that you can't cure a child rapist, child molestor, or rapist. Yet they let them out, with the beliefe that everything will be ok. That is dispicable.

But I still think the above mentioned cases are few, and in general most of the people in jail are there because they made a mistake, instead of penitentaries.

Anubis said:

That is simply not true. There is no deterence for a criminal running a multi-million dollar cocaine cartel if there is no punishment for getting caught. If that is not the case, explain why DUI rates dropped dramatically once there was a mandatory year-long license suspension imposed for first-time offenders, and a mandatory year in jail for repeat offenders. Obviously the punishment IS a deterence, providing it is severe enough.

Click to expand...

I would humbly disagree. When a person is drunk, they are fearful of getting caught. When they get caught, they know they are in trouble, and the sentence is more of an afterthought.

As for the stats, I believe that they are such because of the increase in strictness that made it harder to drive while intoxicated, cutting down on the number of teens who were buying beer and making it harder to do so if underage, and the growth of programs specifically for getting home after drinking, such as MADD and RIDE.

Anubis said:

No problem. It has been a good debate so far. :wink:

Click to expand...

Very true. I am indeed very passionate and interested about this type of stuff.

AADP,
A criminal is someone who is CONVICTED of an offense. Our justice system (like most of the civilized world) is based on the idea that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

GO PACK!!!

Robert C. Hedley

Click to expand...

Innocent until proven guilty my a$$! They think you're guilty that's why you end up in court!

I had two personal cases typed up that proves otherwise but I don't wanna get personal here with my stupid court problems.

Innocent until proven guilty sounds nice, but its not practiced. I know. I've lived it and still paying the fuc0king garnishment for it every paycheck.

Click to expand...

lol ahhh, another fan of having child support...

I agree completly with you there zero, innocent until proven guilty, and almost every other prcinple of fundemental justice is no longer valid.

Click to expand...

Child Support I understand. DNA tests prove shes mine and I'm a proud father. The amount ($324) a month I think is ridiculous when you consider she has another girl and a boy therefore has to have basically everything already for her girl and the main thing that bothers me she doesn't use a day care. We used to have 50/50 with no day care and it did not cost that much to feed and clothe her as well as buying her thigns taking her out etc. Instead of eating a whole pizza, I gave her two pieces, instead of eating all the hamburger helper, I gave her a plate full, instead of eating all the mac n cheese from one box I gave her a bowl full etc... There's no way she cost me more than $162 a month. Maybe 30-50 a week tops.

The other garnishment ($100) a month that pisses me off is my buddy and I were attacked by five men in my truck and I got sued for over $2,000! Some problems I had with that case.
A, My lawyer quit mid case telling me he wasn't needed. (hell if he wasnt, i dont know the laws)
B, My new lawyer told me to plead guilty and I'd only pay a small $140 fine.
C, I WAS THE ONE ******* ATTACKED!

I was at fault because I drove away instead of letting what happened to my truck happen to myself and my friend.
When I drove away I clipped their bumper. My buddy is extremely afraid of the police, he says really stupid shi!t out of being nervous so I took him home first and made sure my truck would make it to the cop shop. My clipping of their bumper damaged my PLASTIC grill, nothing else. I had a crack in it. Thats it! Well on my way to the cop shop my dad called me.

Son, where are you?
-I'm jus leaving nick's, dad. (think of the tone as being from someone who is in his early twenties not wanting his dad checking up on him an who jus had his prized toy dented up by some punks)
What happened tonight? No, don't tell me, find somewhere to stay for a few nights kevin the cops are looking for you. They were just here.
-No dad I have to report this **** they dented up my truck.
Son, you're gonna go to jail if you go downtown. Find somewhere to stay and stay off the radar for a few days.
-ok dad ill be back home sometime next week

that was basically the convo we had. I hadn't much listened to my father in the past but knew well enough I should have. This time. I listened and I shouldn't have.
I hid out for a few nights.
Later got served with a lot of citations. Hit n Run, Assault to a minor, damaging private property, rechless driving ...etc etc etF'Nc. Just like any case they always throw as many citations at you as they can hoping to bite on as many as they can.
The only one that held ground was failure to report an accident. (thanks dad)

Now here's where the bullshi(my opinion)t plays in. The dude's truck was taken in to a dealership where they said my clipping of the bumper caused over $1600. Ranging from the driver side paint (i passed on the passenger side), the front license plate cover, the tirerod (thats in the front) both mirrors, the tail pipe and some other non sense stuff.

My second lawyer told me to plead guilty to failure to report accident, its a $130 fine and all will be well. He told me not to go to trial because I'd potentially lose a LOT of money. Turns out he only said that because he was only being paid X amount for this case regardless of its longevity. Anyhow.
I did as my lawyer instructed. I pleaded guilty to failure to report an adcident.

WHAT THE FU*CKTARD FAILED TO TELL ME is by doing that I assume reimbursement of all damages done to the guys truck by pleading guilty to failure to report accident. Perhaps even at 21 I should have assumed that, but I trusted my lawyer, after all its his JOB!

So yea I got nailed with $1600 for 'damages' done to their truck, $130 fine and court costs. All because my buddy an I got attacked by five guys in my truck and I didn't report it first.

Innocent until proven guilty? No. Innocent if you get your story told first, even if you were the one who was in the wrong.

Innocent until proven guilty? No. Innocent if you get your story told first, even if you were the one who was in the wrong.

Sorry for my rant, but even years later it pisses me off to the max.

Click to expand...

Zero,

I understand you are pissed off about this, but you pled guilty. As such, the prosecution did not need to "prove" much of anything. Your plea of guilt was what convicted you. As such, your case backs up my arguement.

Innocent until proven guilty? No. Innocent if you get your story told first, even if you were the one who was in the wrong.

Sorry for my rant, but even years later it pisses me off to the max.

Click to expand...

Zero,

I understand you are pissed off about this, but you pled guilty. As such, the prosecution did not need to "prove" much of anything. Your plea of guilt was what convicted you. As such, your case backs up my arguement.

BTW: Your lawyer in that case sounds like a complete tool.

GO PACK!!!

Robert C. Hedley

Click to expand...

I was there. You were not. They had me pinned guilty which BOTH my lawyers told me and said the best thing to do is try to cut my losses and move on.
I didn't make this clear enough obviously, but two lawyers and several others stated I was in a position to prove my innocence.

I was in court to prove I was not at fault, not for them to prove me guilty. I couldn't prove my innocence therefore was advised to plead guilty.

Yeah Zero, I think it was downright stupid of the lawyers to suggest that without having a deal negotiated before hand. But as you said, money was probably the factor.

Honestly you should file a complain against the BAR, let the lawyer deal with the fact that he took advantage of his own client in an unethical manner.

Click to expand...

I've got the fine down to a few hundred bucks. I'll have it paid off at the end of the year.

I always lose in court. I can go in being in the right, but I'll come out in the wrong! lol Except driving ticket stuff. I played those many many MANY visits to court masterfully. I had 8 OAR and got all of them dismissed.